• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MBTI vs Socionics

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

That in an of itself could definitely explain the different interpretations of the Jungian functions in developing these systems. I wonder how it would manifest concretely though, so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?
 

Faceless Beauty

Transient
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
177
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
9w8
I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

That in an of itself could definitely explain the different interpretations of the Jungian functions in developing these systems. I wonder how it would manifest concretely though, so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?

Really? I find that more often than not, many things that try to explain MBTI end up relying on behaviors and general personality traits rather than actual thought processes. This is especially the case for those that rely on the dichotomies alone without delving into the functions that make the dichotomies.

Personally, I prefer socionics because it accounts for all the functions more or less, and explains how people operate in terms of decision making and in interactions. Also I think Keirsey's temperaments and the stereotypes associated with them lead to glorification of intuitives and thinkers over feelers and sensors. That's something that you don't really see in socionics. I also find that socionics descriptions of the functions are more strongly correlated to Jungian types compared to MBTI, and there is less emphasis on the strongest extroverted functions. Because Ni dominants and Si dominants are truly perceivers, while Ti and Fi dominants are really judgers. Not watered down versions of their extroverted counterparts.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Really? I find that more often than not, many things that try to explain MBTI end up relying on behaviors and general personality traits rather than actual thought processes.

This is true.

But that's just bad typology.

This is especially the case for those that rely on the dichotomies alone without delving into the functions that make the dichotomies.

And this is just about the worst of it.

Personally, I prefer socionics because it accounts for all the functions more or less...

How do Beebe, Berens, and Thomson not account for all of the functions?

This is one of the falsest arguments made from the Socionics-preferring people.

I seriously discussed the Socionics model with a Socionics proponent once, and found it extremely similar to Beebe's model.

And you can't say that Beebe, Berens, and Thomson don't fall under the MBTI label, since you imply in your post that Keirsey does, and, well, of all of them, Keirsey least deserves to fall under that umbrella, considering his idiotic approach to typology (i.e., ditching the cognitive functions, going solely to the dichotomies [which are fucking derivatives of the cognitive functions in the first place], and focusing on types' supposed behaviors). I see a tendency for Socionics proponents to act like MBTI only considers the 4 regular functions. Yeah, maybe that's what Isabel Myers focused on, but other later theorists (who either deserve to fall under the MBTI umbrella, or, more appropriately, show that there are not just two simple umbrellas to fall under [MBTI vs Socionics], but many [Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al] different Jungian theorists, all of whose thought should be considered independently, with the false Socionics and MBTI labels deserving to be thrown to the wayside), who tend to fall under the MBTI label (mostly because they're American), have focused on all eight functions.

...and explains how people operate in terms of decision making and in interactions.

I don't really see how the non-Socionics theorists don't do the same thing.

Also I think Keirsey's temperaments and the stereotypes associated with them lead to glorification of intuitives and thinkers over feelers and sensors. That's something that you don't really see in socionics.

Ok, can we all just agree on "Fuck David Keirsey"?

This forum is more "MBTI"-oriented than Socionics, and that's pretty much the consensus opinion here.

I also find that socionics descriptions of the functions are more strongly correlated to Jungian types compared to MBTI...

Perhaps.

Could you provide some examples?

Mostly this seems to derive from the j/p labeling difference, which derives from Socionics/Jung putting more emphasis on the dominant function, with Isabel Myers putting more emphasis on the strongest extroverted judging function. Is there anything significant beyond this difference that supports your claim here? (and, if it seems like it, I assure you, this is not simply a rhetorical question)

Also, all of the theorists I mentioned above are, at root, basing their work off of Jung. I think that's the most important point to keep in mind. There's one root, and then each has kinda taken that root in their own direction, based on their own personal perspectives, interpretations, biases, judgments, and valuations. I think this Socionics vs MBTI conflict is false and absurd. There are various Jungian theorists -- Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al -- and we should consider the merits of each theorists' contributions to our understanding of (Jungian) psychological types, not engage in some fruitless pissing contest between "Socionics" and "MBTI" (which, frankly, is probably largely existent for just two stupid reasons: geographic separation, and, with that, certain forums being more devoted to one or the other).

...and there is less emphasis on the strongest extroverted functions. Because Ni dominants and Si dominants are truly perceivers, while Ti and Fi dominants are really judgers. Not watered down versions of their extroverted counterparts.

This I agree with.

I think there is lots of value to Socionics' j/p labeling system.

At the same time, tho, there is also values to MBTI's (i.e., Isabel Myers').

I do think Jung put more emphasis on the dominant functions, which is what Socionics' j/p labeling system also does, and which, actually, Dario Nardi's empirical work using EEGs on various psychological types has seemingly bolstered. That being said, as I said above, I do think there is value to also considering the importance of a type's strongest extroverted function, because, as an Ni-dom, while I certainly can feel the similarity between me and INFJs (and NJs, in general), I also feel a damn strong connection with TJs, in general. The shared dominant or auxiliary Te is very apparent, and creates a strong similarity between all of us.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

Yes, and no. I think quadras and intertype are more about behavior but Gulenko's cognitive thinking styles is hardly an example of a theory that focuses on behavior. Then again however, quadra and intertype while it could be improved make a lot of sense. I found my type more easily using Reinin than just looking at functions alone, although a bit red flash light was also the fact that I'm clearly Te-seeking. But I mostly relied on Reinin dichotomies when self-typing myself.

so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?
Clear favorite and it's socionics. It feels overall more organic and natural as a system. I definitely see some overlap but I think it's easier typing people in socionics than the MBTI. While the system is rigid I find that it's not as rigid as MBTI in some ways, especially if you look at theorists such as Beebe that I don't like at all.

Also, socionics kind of already incorporates some of his views but does it better in my opinion, same with Lenore Thomson who on the one hand, has great ideas (I do like her function descriptions, Jung's rosery prose is SO hard to digest for me), on the other hand, some absolutely terrible in that she cannot back anything up e.g. trying to map functions to brain hemispheres. I also find that socionics correlates much better to Jung than it the MBTI does overall. In many ways it feels like MBTI tries to account for too many things e..g. the I/E axis but it does so in a very messy manner which ultimately ends up being completely meaningless when it comes to actually saying something about people.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
While the system is rigid I find that it's not as rigid as MBTI in some ways...

In what ways is MBTI more rigid?

...especially if you look at theorists such as Beebe that I don't like at all.

What do you not like about Beebe?

Also, socionics kind of already incorporates some of his views but does it better in my opinion...

What views of Beebe's does Socionics incorporate?

And in what ways does it incorporate them better?

...same with Lenore Thomson who on the one hand, has great ideas, on the other hand, some absolutely terrible in that she cannot back anything up e.g. trying to map functions to brain hemispheres.

Agreed.

I also find that socionics correlates much better to Jung than it the MBTI does overall.

Well, why should Jung be the end-all, be-all?

Perhaps "MBTI-theorists" have captured reality better than Jung.

In many ways it feels like MBTI tries to account for too many things e..g. the I/E axis...

What do you mean here by the I/E axis?

And are there any other examples you can provide?

...but it does so in a very messy manner which ultimately ends up being completely meaningless when it comes to actually saying something about people.

How does it do so in a very messy manner?

And why is it completely meaningless?
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In what ways is MBTI more rigid?

Beebe, how some people interpret it that you can only express 4 function attitudes.
What do you not like about Beebe?

Rigidity, that it goes from A-Z.
What views, and in what ways does Socionics incorporate them better?

For example Lenore's crow's nest idea is expressed in the super-ego block in socionics, or Beebe's puer archetype is expressed in the demonstrative function.
Well, why should Jung be the end-all, be-all?

Not saying he is. I am myself skeptical when people only cite Jung as the king of typology but I find that the way socionics reflects reality seems to do so more accurately in accordance with Jung's teachings, i.e. it correlates better to Jungian type. Which is why I think many people don't have an MBTI type that correlates well to their sociotype in all instances.
Perhaps "MBTI-theorists" have captured reality better than Jung.
Expansion of theory is inevitable and welcome.
What do you mean hear by the I/E axis?
You mean "here"? I mean how introversion-extroversion is on the one hand mixed up with the function attitudes i.e. an introvert is someone with a dominant introverted function but on the other hand is a person who is also socially introverted. There are overlaps yes, but I find that those overlaps correlate more strongly to enneagram than they do with our cognitive types. It just becomes a theoretical mess because people end up thinking that "I can't be an extrovert" (quite often this way, rarely the other way around) because "I don't like being around people" etc. It misses the point of the function attitudes and where our focus lies. There must be a stronger theoretical correlation between the two to explain the I/E axis better. For example, a person I know in real life and who is slightly interested in MBTI without me knowing typed me as an INFJ because when we meet I seem pretty social and outgoing and he thought my I/E axis was something like 60% introvert, 40% extrovert or similar. This entirely misses the point of how cognitive introversion and extroversion works. Socially perhaps this is true but I am clearly having a strong bias towards being a cognitive introvert because my thinking is subjective, not objective.
And are there any other examples you can provide?

The issues with the J/P axis has already been mentioned. I could also mention how even tests developed by Thomson herself for example doesn't seem to capture the reality of the functions well but mostly seem to be like stereotypes of them which is quite ironic considering that I do think that her work on function descriptions are great.
How does it do so in a very messy manner?

Read what I wrote in the above.
And why is it completely meaningless?

Because if it fails to reach the purpose then it is poorly implemented. In the case of the I/E axis, I am not even sure what the purpose is with it or what it is truly trying to say. Is it to determine cognitive dominance, social introversion-extroversion or both...? The purpose is unclear and thus the letter code itself feels meaningless.
 

Faceless Beauty

Transient
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
177
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
9w8
This is true.

But that's just bad typology.

I guess.


How do Beebe, Berens, and Thomson not account for all of the functions?

This is one of the falsest arguments made from the Socionics-preferring people.

I seriously discussed the Socionics model with a Socionics proponent once, and found it extremely similar to Beebe's model.

That's actually a valid point, though model A doesn't exactly explain the functions in terms of shadow vs conscious. And rather than finding it easier to use and value the first four functions, difficulty, value, and use varies with each individual function. For example, the demonstrative function in your id block is the second easiest to use other than your leading function, but it's subconscious and undervalued. But now that you've pointed this out, I will start to look for more similarities between Beebe's model and Model A.

And you can't say that Beebe, Berens, and Thomson don't fall under the MBTI label, since you imply in your post that Keirsey does, and, well, of all of them, Keirsey least deserves to fall under that umbrella, considering his idiotic approach to typology (i.e., ditching the cognitive functions, going solely to the dichotomies [which are fucking derivatives of the cognitive functions in the first place], and focusing on types' supposed behaviors). I see a tendency for Socionics proponents to act like MBTI only considers the 4 regular functions. Yeah, maybe that's what Isabel Myers focused on, but other later theorists (who either deserve to fall under the MBTI umbrella, or, more appropriately, show that there are not just two simple umbrellas to fall under [MBTI vs Socionics], but many [Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al] different Jungian theorists, all of whose thought should be considered independently, with the false Socionics and MBTI labels being deserving to be thrown to the wayside), who tend to fall under the MBTI label (mostly because they're American), have focused on all eight functions.

More valid points, and Lenore Thompson has pretty good explanations of the functions as well.

I don't really see how the non-Socionics theorists don't do the same thing.

They do I suppose. I'm not sure how they would respond to all of the other aspects of socionics, such as Gulenko's cognitive styles and Reinin dichotomies.

Ok, can we all just agree on "Fuck David Keirsey"?

This forum is more "MBTI"-oriented than Socionics, and that's pretty much the consensus opinion here.

PREACH! Lol.


Perhaps.

Could you provide some examples?

Also, all of the theorists I mentioned above are, at root, basing their work off of Jung. I think that's the most important point to keep in mind. There's one root, and then each has kinda taken that root in their own direction, based on their own personal perspectives, interpretations, biases, judgment, and valuations. I think this Socionics vs MBTI conflict is false and absurd. There are various Jungian theorists -- Isabel Myers, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, John Beebe, David Keirsey, Linda Berens, Lenore Thomson, et al -- and we should consider the merits of each theorists' contributions to our understanding of (Jungian) psychological types, not engage in some fruitless pissing contest between "Socionics" and "MBTI.

I tell people something like this all the time, and in all honesty, I view a minimal difference between the functions in all systems. Once you get past the fluff to the common themes and such, you will see the roots that lie in Jung. But to provide an example of ways I could see more of a correlation between socionics descriptions and Jung's functions as outlined in Psych types I will use Se as an example (And I'll provide links to my sources and what not.

Jung said:
Sensation
Sensation, in the extraverted attitude, is most definitely conditioned by the object. As sense-perception, sensation is naturally dependent upon the object. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent upon the subject; hence, there is also a subjective sensation, which after its kind is entirely different from the objective. In the extraverted attitude this subjective share of sensation, in so far as its conscious application is concerned, is either inhibited or repressed. As an irrational function, sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them. The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility, but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed (with the exception of the subjective share already mentioned). Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the object. Sensation, therefore, is a vital function, equipped with the potentest [sic] vital instinct. In so far as objects release sensations, they matter; and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes, in so far as they release sensations at all, make their appearance in consciousness. It is, however, only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes which excite sensations in the extraverted attitude; exclusively those, in fact, which everyone in all times and places would sense as concrete. Hence, the orientation of such an individual corresponds with purely concrete reality. The judging, rational functions are subordinated to the concrete facts of sensation, and, accordingly, possess the qualities of inferior differentiation, i.e. they are marked by a certain negativity, with infantile and archaic tendencies. The function most affected by the repression, is, naturally, the one standing opposite to sensation, viz. intuition, the function of unconscious perception.

The Extraverted Sensation Type
No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events of his life hardly deserve the name 'experience'. He knows no better use for this sensed 'experience' than to make it serve as a guide to fresh sensations; anything in the least 'new' that comes within his circle of interest is forthwith turned to a sensational account and is made to serve this end. In so far as one is disposed to regard a highly developed sense for sheer actuality as very reasonable, will such men be esteemed rational. In reality, however, this is by no means the case, since they are equally subject to the sensation of irrational, chance happenings, as they are to rational behaviour.
Such a type—the majority arc men apparently—does not, of course, believe himself to be 'subject' to sensation. He would be much more inclined to ridicule this view as altogether inconclusive, since, from his standpoint, sensation is the concrete manifestation of life—it is simply the fulness [sic] of actual living. His aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is similarly orientated. For true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and devotedness. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of æsthetic purity without being the least unfaithful, even in his most abstract sensations, to his principle of objective sensation. Wulfen's Cicerone des r¨cksichtlosen Lebensgenusses is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort. From this point of view the book seems to me worth reading.
Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete.
In the former case, the great problems of life hinge upon a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, they are questions of good taste. When he 'senses', everything essential has been said and done. Nothing can be more than concrete and actual; conjectures that transcend or go beyond the concrete are only permitted on condition that they enhance sensation. This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without. What comes from within seems to him morbid and objectionable. In so far as lie thinks and feels, he always reduces down to objective foundations, i.e. to influences coming from the object, quite unperturbed by the most violent departures from logic. Tangible reality, under any conditions, makes him breathe again. In this respect he is unexpectedly credulous. He will, without hesitation, relate an obvious psychogenic symptom to the falling barometer, while the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him a fantastic abnormality. His love is incontestably rooted in the manifest attractions of the object. In so far as he is normal, he is conspicuously adjusted to positive reality—conspicuously, because his adjustment is always visible. His ideal is the actual; in this respect he is considerate. He has no ideals related to ideas—he has, therefore, no sort of ground for maintaining a hostile attitude towards the reality of things and facts. This expresses itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, according to his circumstances ; he keeps a good table for his friends, who are either made comfortable or at least given to understand that his fastidious taste is obliged to impose certain claims upon his entourage. He even convinces one that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.

Wikisocion said:
Extroverted sensing () is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.
includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required.
Types that value are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value . There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), (Se) is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.

Se as a base (1st) function (SLE and SEE)

The individual feels at home among people who are actively doing something and interacting with each other directly (visibly), and is able to organize people, move them around as necessary, and guide them in achieving a specific goal. He or she likes obedience and even subservience in others, since it allows him to "make things happen" more effectively.
He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.
He wants to make all decisions himself about what he will do, wear, eat, look like, etc., and resents any attempts by others to make these decisions for him. However, he is willing to make use of other peoples' ideas, advice, and creativity, as long as he plays the most visible role.
He enjoys testing his will in challenging situations and views life as a sort of obstacle course, full of adversity and challenges, that must be weathered and conquered.

If you look at what Jung is saying about the primary focus of the Se type being the sensations elicited from the object, his description and the one that Socionics has for basic aspects of Se and Se lead types show the behaviors that manifest from the focus on sensations derived from objects and the world around them. I think that socionists responsible for the creation of Model A and information elements viewed the focus on sensations derived from the environment as ways that Se base and creative (lead and aux) types gauge the amount of impact that actions have on something, despite some of the descriptions coming with an air of unconscious intuition supporting the actions that are described.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Psychological_Types
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Extraverted_sensing

This I agree with.

I think there is lots of value to Socionics' j/p labeling system.

At the same time, tho, there is also values to MBTI's (i.e., Isabel Myers').

I do think Jung put more emphasis on the dominant functions, which is what Socionics' j/p labeling system also does, and which, actually, Dario Nardi's empirical work using EEGs on various psychological types has seemingly bolstered. That being said, as I said above, I do think there is value to also considering the importance of a type's strongest extroverted function, because, as an Ni-dom, while I certainly can feel the similarity between me and INFJs (and NJs, in general), I also feel a damn strong connection with TJs, in general. The shared dominant or auxiliary Te is very obvious, and creates a strong similarity between all of us.

Nardi has good works too, and I like how he actually incorporates observations of brain activity with this. And I think that a lot of subcategorizations of types based on shared temperaments and functions are quite useful as well. It accounts for a lot of similarities between types that people view as "vastly different," due to differing temperaments and other things(e.g: introverted judging domninats, IxxPs).
 

sulfit

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
495
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.
In my research into socionics I've found this to be largely untrue.

Socionics goes further than MBTI into explaining the different thinking styles of different types. One such work is an article by Victor Gulenko Form of Cognition, which lays the foundation for rings of supervision analyzing their existence from the point of view of cognition of different types.

Socionics profiles tend to be more detailed than MBTI ones, but I think that's explainable if you think about the origins of socionics. It was incepted in Eastern Europe, in 70s and 80s during Soviet time, when cultural homogeneity was encouraged and reinforced in the soviet bloc. The profiles based on such culturally and ethnically homogeneous population go into a lot more specifics in describing types. Of course right now that socionics is reaching the rest of the globe many of these details are inapplicable and become useless clutter on their profiles. This turns some people away from socionics, since they think it's only about describing appearance and behaviors of types, and don't study the theory behind the system.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In my research into socionics I've found this to be largely untrue.

Socionics goes further than MBTI into explaining the different thinking styles of different types. One such work is an article by Victor Gulenko Form of Cognition, which lays the foundation for rings of supervision analyzing their existence from the point of view of cognition of different types.

Socionics profiles tend to be more detailed than MBTI ones, but I think that's explainable if you think about the origins of socionics. It was incepted in Eastern Europe, in 70s and 80s during Soviet time, when cultural homogeneity was encouraged and reinforced in the soviet bloc. The profiles based on such culturally and ethnically homogeneous population go into a lot more specifics in describing types. Of course right now that socionics is reaching the rest of the globe many of these details are inapplicable and become useless clutter on their profiles. This turns some people away from socionics, since they think it's only about describing appearance and behaviors of types, and don't study the theory behind the system.

I agree with this so much. I am uncertain about the true applicability of Gulenko's cognitive styles though, but for most of the part they actually seem to hold true which is interesting. I also agree with tht people who dislike socionics tend to do it for superficial reasons such as being turned off by the profile descriptions and VI which is funny considering that MBTI is hardly much better in this regard.
 

sulfit

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
495
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
How do Beebe, Berens, and Thomson not account for all of the functions?

This is one of the falsest arguments made from the Socionics-preferring people.
They don't account for the synergy of functions. Basically, all functions are working together in concert, and their combinations produce higher order effects that follow the principle of strong emergence i.e. these effects can no longer be decomposed into their singular functional components. This is what MBTI and most of the MBTI researchers fail to take into account, while in socionics they at least attempt to cover it somehow. This is what things like Reinin dichotomies and thinking styles are all about.

Thus if you stick with MBTI, continue studying separate functional components whilst ignoring dichotomies, and don't realize that "mixin'-n'-matching" of functions results in more evolved cognitive effects, then you only have the most basic view and understanding of jungian theories. Not that socionics covers it all, but in this sense they are way ahead of MBTI.
 

Azure Flame

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,317
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
I haven't read very much on the more in depth books on mbti. I'd like to.

I think I read berens about the differences between Ti and Te. And those more or less equated to the same understanding I have of socionics Te and Ti.

I'm fairly certain the systems are the same. If you take 2 people and observe humans over a long period of time to develope a typology system, how different will they really be?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
They don't account for the synergy of functions. Basically, all functions are working together in concert, and their combinations produce higher order effects that follow the principle of strong emergence i.e. these effects can no longer be decomposed into their singular functional components. This is what MBTI and most of the MBTI researchers fail to take into account, while in socionics they at least attempt to cover it somehow. This is what things like Reinin dichotomies and thinking styles are all about.

Thus if you stick with MBTI, continue studying separate functional components whilst ignoring dichotomies, and don't realize that "mixin'-n'-matching" of functions results in more evolved cognitive effects, then you only have the most basic view and understanding of jungian theories. Not that socionics covers it all, but in this sense they are way ahead of MBTI.

This is a more "MBTI-focused" forum, and, frankly, we do this shit all the time.

I'm not saying Socionics doesn't do this, but, honestly, I haven't seen anything they've produced that was so mind-startlingly brilliant that I had to put down everything I was doing and read all the rest of their material because it was so obviously saturated with truth that it would be a huge mistake for me to do anything but. That's how I get when shit is absurdly accurate and insightful. When I read most Socionics stuff, I think it's turgid, written in broken English, and unnecessarily convoluted to the extent that it just starts seeming ridiculous. I'm open to the possibility that I'm seeing it incorrectly; it just has yet to pass the sniff test (and I've tried many times).
 

sulfit

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
495
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
This is a more "MBTI-focused" forum, and, frankly, we do this shit all the time.
Yes, I understand that this is mostly an MBTI-focused forum. I've been a member here for several years. This fact has not escaped me. And no, I haven't seen much equivalent done on MBTI forums that would entail seriously investigating the synergistic combinations of functions.

I'm not saying Socionics doesn't do this, but, honestly, I haven't seen anything they've produced that was so mind-startlingly brilliant that I had to put down everything I was doing and read all the rest of their material because it was so obviously saturated with truth that it would be a huge mistake for me to do anything but. That's how I get when shit is absurdly accurate and insightful. When I read most Socionics stuff, I think it's turgid, written in broken English, and unnecessarily convoluted to the extent that it just starts seeming ridiculous. I'm open to the possibility that I'm seeing it incorrectly; it just has yet to pass the sniff test (and I've tried many times).
People say it can be a useful addition to MBTI. MBTI frankly seems too bare-bones and simplistic. This simplicity bores me, which is why I've decided to take up socionics, so to each his own. I've always liked solving puzzles and various other kinds of mental challenges, and socionics presents a worthy puzzle to be solved.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ive personally found socionics so far to be a valuable addition to mbti myself. It explains parts of me that MBTI hasn't, and vice versa.
 

1487610420

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
6,426
I personally believe, that typology models, such as the socionics, ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.
 

violet_crown

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
4,959
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
853
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I prefer MBTI to Socionics simply because Socionics is a needlessly inelegant system. It's like someone took a look at MBTI's admitted failings, and was like "WE SHALL FIX ALL THE THINGS!!!!!!1111" And what they got instead was a clusterfuck.

I wish it were a bit more accessible. I presently rely on a combination of MBTI and enneagram. I have definitely been tempted by the intertype relations business, though, but I get a couple minute into it and I see one multi-colored shape too many and that's pretty much all she wrote.

Socionics to me is a house that Ne built. Taking just a cursory glance at the thread, it's not surprising that peoples' preference for or objections against the system seem to coincide with their preference for Ne or Ni.

I personally believe, that typology models, such as the socionics, ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.

This is exactly the kind of shenanigans I'm talking about. :nono:
 

Kierva

#KUWK
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
2,469
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Socionics is a glorified MBTI system with more detail. It includes groups that which the type belong to, as well their respective attitudes (i.e. merry/serious) and also function subtypes (i.e. SLE-Ti). There's many more that I haven't listed here, but if you do want to find out more I suggest you go to socionics.us. There's lots of beginner friendly stuff on that site.

Personally, while I think each system has its merits, I prefer socionics. I'll quote [MENTION=10791]sulfit[/MENTION] as to why:

synergy of functions
 

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
In my research into socionics I've found this to be largely untrue.

Socionics goes further than MBTI into explaining the different thinking styles of different types. One such work is an article by Victor Gulenko Form of Cognition, which lays the foundation for rings of supervision analyzing their existence from the point of view of cognition of different types.

Interesting article with lots to digest. I can see all four of the styles in myself to some extent. I think I relate to holographical-panoramic and dialetical-algorithmic the most. Holographic is consistent with INTj (LII) and dialectical algorithmic is consistent with INTp (ILI), both types I've considered for myself.
 

Elocute

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
127
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
I am not well-versed on the theory, but I much prefer to leave the ambiguity in type as opposed to rigidly defining how each function is utilized within a type. It seems a bit presumptuous to me that this theory delves into the usage of all functions and how each differs with type/quadra. It tries to be far too exact and in doing tenuously describes people "better" than the MBTI. Better is just more verbose from what I've read.

I much prefer the four function preferences and ambiguity to the rest of functions as they are servile; trying to not only define them for each type, but how they work for each seems too entrenched in subjective appraisal to be useful. Also, the documentation is translation, so I have no idea what idiomatic and bias-errors are pronounced in these works without the official documentation. Without an official translation, its overarching stance in conjunction with attempting to use facial features/gestures is a turnoff for me.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I am not well-versed on the theory, but I much prefer to leave the ambiguity in type as opposed to rigidly defining how each function is utilized within a type. It seems a bit presumptuous to me that this theory delves into the usage of all functions and how each differs with type/quadra. It tries to be far too exact and in doing tenuously describes people "better" than the MBTI. Better is just more verbose from what I've read.

I much prefer the four function preferences and ambiguity to the rest of functions as they are servile; trying to not only define them for each type, but how they work for each seems too entrenched in subjective appraisal to be useful. Also, the documentation is translation, so I have no idea what idiomatic and bias-errors are pronounced in these works without the official documentation. Without an official translation, its overarching stance in conjunction with attempting to use facial features/gestures is a turnoff for me.

But some MBTI theorists have attempted to develop an 8 function model which is pretty much the same as socionics in some ways (Beebe, Thomson, I also think Berens?). Also, the way we relate to people around us is already laid out by Jung. Socionics just develops this idea further e.g. Ti tends to oppose Fi and Fi opposes Fe. The logic behind this is pretty obvious since Ti and Fi evaluate internal judgements in a very different manner and Fi has a different way of evaluating (introverted) compared to Fe (extroverted). This is what the quadra values and to a degree, intertype system is based on.

Obviously, if we do not share perceptions of the world and how to arrive at conclusions there will be communication problems. Socionics describes this pretty well in my opinion, even though it can be better.
 
Top